CVE-2017-9788

CRITICALNVD 9.19.1Elevated

Also known asEUVD-2017-18716 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-w97h-p5ff-7q69 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.1EG

EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).

167 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running an affected version — derived from Shodan data (© Shodan); a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open
High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 57%

CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 57%CVSS: 9.1Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: 167

A fix is available — apply it.

In Apache httpd before 2.2.34 and 2.4.x before 2.4.27, the value placeholder in [Proxy-]Authorization headers of type 'Digest' was not initialized or reset before or between successive key=value assignments by mod_auth_digest. Providing an initial key with no '=' assignment could reflect the stale value of uninitialized pool memory used by the prior request, leading to leakage of potentially confidential information, and a segfault in other cases resulting in denial of service.

Internet exposure · derived from Shodan data

167 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running a version that maps to CVE-2017-9788, in our KEV-Exposure radar’s Shodan-derived sample.

across 41 hosting countries (United States, Poland, Japan, Germany, France)top: http_server

See the KEV-Exposure radar →Derived from Shodan data. Shodan data is owned by Shodan, which holds its copyright (© Shodan). EchelonGraph claims no ownership of it or copyright in it. Aggregate, host-redacted.

How it counts: every 12 hours, when Shodan query credits allow, the radar runs one Shodan query per tracked product, reads up to 100 ip:port services per query, and keeps a service when its banner version matches a CISA-KEV or high-EPSS CVE; a service is dropped when neither a search nor a Shodan InternetDB port re-check has refreshed it for 21 days. A re-check that finds the port still listed by Shodan InternetDB refreshes the service without re-reading the banner, so a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open. A count is a banner-version inference over a sample, not an exploit test and not an internet-wide census, and the unit is a service, not a machine: a machine answering on two ports counts twice.

CVSS v3: 9.1
EG Score: 9.1CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk: 64
EPSS PROB: 57%
EPSS %ILE: 99th
KEV: Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity: 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood: 57% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation: None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority: SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 13, 2017

Last Modified

June 17, 2026